Supreme Court of India· 25 February 2025

Can this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, review the proportionality of the punishment imposed by the House on one of its members?

Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors.

2025 INSC 264 · WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 530 OF 2024
Coram: Surya Kant; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Art. 212(1) Constitution of India 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Yes. There is no absolute bar on Constitutional Courts examining the proportionality of a punishment imposed by the House on a member while reviewing the validity of the House's action; courts intervene only when the punishment is so disproportionate that it shocks the intrinsic sense of justice.

Headnote

Constitution of India — Art. 212(1), Art. 208 — Ethics Committee action — Administrative, not legislative — Constitution of India — Art. 212(1) — Proceedings in the Legislature vs. Legislative Decision — Ethics Committee action reviewable — Held: Article 212(1) bars scrutiny only of 'Proceedings in the Legislature' for procedural irregularity; it does not oust judicial review of a 'Legislative Decision' or an administrative action of a House committee for illegality or unconstitutionality. The Ethics Committee's recommendation, being administrative under Article 208, is neither, and remains reviewable. (¶23) Constitution of India — Art. 14, Art. 21 — Doctrine of proportionality — Applies to House disciplinary action — Held further: There is no absolute bar on Constitutional Courts examining the proportionality of a punishment imposed by the House on a member while reviewing the validity of that action. Courts intervene only when the punishment prescribed is so disproportionate that it shocks the intrinsic sense of justice. (¶60, 62) Constitution of India — Art. 142 — Expulsion disproportionate — Reinstatement directed — Held further: The petitioner's expulsion was excessive and disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. Invoking Article 142 to do complete justice, the period already undergone is deemed a period of suspension, the Impugned Report and Notification are modified to that extent, and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated. (¶77, 86)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 60As stated, the absence of a duly elected representative disrupts the democratic process and undermines the voice of the electorate. In such a situation, if the punishment inflicted upon the member concerned appears to be prima facie harsh and disproportionate, Constitutional Courts owe a duty to undo such gross injustice and review the proportionality of such disqualifications or expulsions.

Paragraph 61It is pertinent to add that the aforementioned responsibility involves a delicate balance where courts must act decisively to strike down excessively harsh actions that threaten our democratic fabric while simultaneously exercising restraint to avoid encroaching upon the legislative domain. We reiterate that courts must reflect a certain degree of deference to the legislative will and wisdom, intervening only when the action prescribed is so disproportionate that it shocks the intrinsic sense of justice.

Paragraph 62Given the foregoing discussion, we hold that there is no absolute bar on the Constitutional Courts to examine the proportionality of the punishment imposed on a member while reviewing the validity of the action taken by the House. By focusing on the proportionality of punishment, courts must ensure that justice aligns with constitutional values and societal norms, thereby upholding the integrity of the democratic process.

Acts & Sections

Art. 212(1) Constitution of IndiaArt. 208 Constitution of IndiaArt. 14 Constitution of IndiaArt. 21 Constitution of IndiaArt. 142 Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Whether the instant Writ Petition is maintainable in view of Article 212(1) of the Constitution of India and whether the proceedings of the Ethics Committee of a State Legislative Council are amenable to judicial review?Can this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution substitute a lesser punishment for a member's expulsion where remanding the matter would cause undue delay?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections